News analysis

The World Economic Forum in Davos

Leaders without followers

AS THE movers and shakers head to the Swiss mountain resort of Davos this week for the annual World Economic Forum, their credentials as global leaders look anything but resilient. Their official theme will be “resilient dynamism”, whatever that means, but what they ought to be talking about is the low level of trust the public has in their ability to do anything useful. The annual "Trust Barometer" survey published by Edelman, a public-relations firm, reports widespread scepticism about the ethics practised by political and business leaders. The lowest scores were when those surveyed were asked if they trust leaders to “tell the truth, regardless of how complex or unpopular it is”: only 18% trusted business leaders, whilst government leaders scored a yet more miserable 13%.

This lack of trust seems strikingly personal. As Edelman points out, trust in business and government leaders is far lower than trust in the respective institutions of business and government. Globally there is a gap of 32 percentage points between trust in business and trust in business leaders to tell the truth (35% in America and China), and a 28 percentage-point gap between trust in government and trust in its leaders to tell the truth (47% in China, 35% in India).

Whilst trust in leaders remains horribly low, overall trust in institutions has actually edged up in the past years—though hardly to levels at which anyone should feel satisfied. Overall trust across business, government, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the media is now 57%, up from 51% in 2012, according to Edelman’s barometer, which as in previous years is based on a poll in 26 countries of what Edelman calls “informed people”, which typically means professional and well-educated. A companion survey found significantly lower levels of trust among the population at large: 48%, nine percentage points less globally, 14 points less in America, Poland and Sweden. Institutions in only 11 of the countries enjoyed trust levels of at least 50% among their general public, whilst 18 did among informed people.

Trust has risen evenly over all four sorts of institution. NGOs remain the most trusted, at 63%, and government least trusted, at 48%. In only eight countries is government trusted more than business, which is not saying much in low trust South Korea (government 44%, business 31%) and hard to believe in seemingly high trust China (81% and 74%). For government, the reasons cited for a lack of trust included corruption or fraud (33%) followed by poor performance (31%). Only 16% cited poor performance as a cause of low trust in business, whose top negatives were corruption or fraud (27%) and wrong incentives driving business decisions (23%). Executive pay retains the power to annoy: the only countries in which NGOs are trusted by less than 50% of those surveyed are Sweden (46%), Russia (40%) and Japan (37%).

As in 2012, technology is the most trusted industry, with 77% approval, eight percentage points ahead of the car industry. Even banks and financial services now enjoy a 50% trust score worldwide, up from 47% and 45% respectively in 2012. However, there are significant differences between countries on the banks, which are trusted by only 22% in Britain, 19% in Spain and 11% in Ireland (down from, respectively, 47%, 45% and 35% before the financial meltdown of 2008). Small firms are trusted more than big business in the developed world, by 76% to 53%; big is more trustworthy in emerging economies, by 79% to 70%.

Why the big gap between trust in leaders and the institutions they lead? Edelman suggests that leaders have been slow to adapt to the requirements of a world in which top down is no longer the best way to lead, or in many cases even a viable one. Suffice it to say, there is nothing more top down than trying to lead the world from high up a mountain.

In the 21st century, few people believe that their leaders know more, or are more skilled, than they are. Up until fairly recently, most people bought into the paternalistic view that there was an educated elite which was the most capable of running their country and/or business. People accepted normal levels of venality, nepotism, and corruption because they thought that, in exchange, they were getting someone with the skills, education, and strong upbringing to prepare them for the difficult task of making the big decisions. But that has changed. In a world where we all know far too much about other people's private lives, it is now assumed that all leaders have feet of clay, and are quite likely deeply flawed. In fact it is assumed that only a morally and ethically flawed person would do what is necessary to climb the greasy political pole that led to their lofty position of leadership. Education is no longer a good for which there is a perceived shortage; there are lots of people with the education and training to make decisions. So in a world where there is no shortage of people capable of taking leadership positions, the public is now far less willing to put up with the venality, corruption, and nepotism inherent in those power structures. We deeply resent the power granted to people whose only special skill seems to be the ability to climb to a position of power. In both business and politics, the overwhelming zeitgeist is that the need to have powerful leaders has been vastly overstated (mostly by those leaders), and that we would have fairer and more efficient government and business if leaders were forced to ruthlessly practice subsidiarity, pushing power and decision-making to the lowest possible level, ideally right down to the customer and the citizen. The organizational stuctures that were created to give CEOs and heads of government the power to manage in a world with scarce information, talent, and training, now seem hopelessly outdated where information and training are much easier to find, and talent is if anything more prevalent at the bottom of the pyramid than the top. While we may envy Davos man for his riches, we no longer respect him, and will not accept his leadership. We want leaders intent on serving us, not ruling us.

Those at Davos do not really help the world to derive a future but only basically super wealth for themselves. Indeed the richest 100 people on the planet got even richer in 2012, adding $241 billion to their collective net worth, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, a daily ranking of the world’s 100 wealthiest individuals.
Overall capitalism and its bed partner globalization are designed to fail the people. It fails the masses because it is regulated by a minority of ultra-powerful businesses and people across the world. In this respect 2000 businesses according to Forbes in 2011 controlled 51% of the total economic output/turnover of the world - in nominal terms $36 trillion and where the total economic global output was $71 trillion. But where these mere 2000 companies only employ around 180 million people that take the 'cream' of the world's economic wealth. The remainder of the economically available workforce/people of the world, at around 3,200 million, are left with the crumbs on the table to get by. With this sort of global wealth distribution the western economic system cannot succeed and where year-on-year the outcome is increased poverty for one end product alone (based on UN figures). Indeed if we keep the capitalist system as it is and where eastern nations have now seen what happens, western society will decline at an unparalleled rate of knots over the next quarter of a century. For the writing is on the wall already and where the present incumbents (western political and business leaders) know no different and where their future economic strategies will ultimately fail us that live in the West. No 'ifs' and 'buts' about this as developing circumstances will dictate this outcome with the present fixed mindsets of the powerful few. Indeed when history looks back on the decline of the 'West' they will say, wouldn't it have been nice if the wealthiest in the West thought further and redistributed their wealth as wise men and women should have done’. If only those attending Davos could see this and realise that what they are about is the opposite of their perceived endeavours - basically bit-by-bit destroying the western dream and where each decade they add further nails to the socio-economic coffin of what was once the most powerful regions in the world. But no more and all down to a system of development that is destined to make a small minority of people richer than they can ever spend in their lifetime and the vast majority living basically and permanently on a shoe string. But the saving grace is that the emerging eastern economic powerhouses have seen the folly of western ideologies and economic ways. Hopefully they will not make the same huge mistakes, are far wiser and more knowledgeable in distributing future global wealth to their people, unlike in the West where hording the world’s wealth has become the norm for the few. By doing this they wreak havoc on most of the people throughout our planet, but where there will eventual be catastrophic consequences. Redistribution is therefore the only way to stop global wars and sustain the human experience. Let us hope also therefore that new eastern values have arrived at the 11th hour to save humanity and Western populations from its own inherent destruction. As natural unreplenishable resources decline at an alarming rate and the world’s population rises to most probably 10 billion or more by 2050 (UN figures have constantly been reassessed upwards for the past 20 years so at least 10 billion will be around), redistribution of wealth is paramount and it has to start now.
For if those gathering at Davos do not understand this, the western world can look forward to a very bleak future indeed. Can some humans be so mad as not to see this, probably they can when power and wealth are a far greater prize than the human experience/existence itself.

Why WEF is irrelevant: so it draws some big names, and is held in a chic ski resort...but far from the shimmering, glamourous power summit portrayed in the media, WEF is just a conference. No policy is agreed, no revelations are made, armies of mid-level lobbyists, consultants and bankers hover behind the scenes to pick up lucrative new deals while a few ageing billionaires meet discreetly for canapes and chatter before leaving swiftly in their jets while their underlings scramble for new business. (I should know, I was one of them.)

Like Kabuki theatre, the conference focuses mainly on the dramatic entrances and exits of the usual actors - all form, and little substance. Last year Brown university had a room for Alumni - I popped in to find a couple of 30 somethings playing pool. Is that glamour? Is that power?

When I read these kind of articles I ask myself ¿Why if we are in the 21th century when the education, information technologies, different kind of theories (about economics, governments, financials, management, etc.) are extremely well developed, in other words there haven’t been other time in our existence when all these topics have been better developed and evolved, so why the institutions and people who manage our economics, politics, and society as a whole seems to be so incompetent and things doesn’t work as they should work?
Then I came to two responses; the first is that our economics and societies suffer from structural new problems that even for the most competent are a real challenge to tackle them, even though we would think they account with all the right tools, I think there will be always an inherent complexity, which will make it difficult for our institutions and people who manage our society.
The second response I have found, to me is the one who generates a major impact on the underperform of our institutions, people on the power and societies as a general, I also think this is nothing new, and it is a problem of values, mainly of selfishness, the majority of people in power are mainly interested on serving their own interests at the expenses of the interest of the whole population, to serve the own interest is the easiest path, it´s a lot easier to satisfy the interest of small groups than those of a whole population, the easiest path then has its consequences, obviously the main consequence is that the resources goes to a “privileged” elite but there’s a second effect which is equally damaging and it is mainly related to incompetence, why should I worry to spend time developing the skills required to satisfy the requirements of the whole society? This is more evidenced in governments, where the majority of people in power won´t spent time, energy and to develop capabilities to serve people, basically because once they serve their interest they won’t do that, also because the style of lives of people in power who serves their own interest relates to styles of lives of vanity, which brings incompetence.
Finally, I want to make a calling, this is that we as societies are very prone to blame the leaders and institutions for the underperform of our societies, for our own problems, we don´t like to see our own miseries, then there is again a problem of values which is humility, in a lot of countries, we have worried more and spend more on satisfying our own “pleasures”, in a lot of places there are kids who spend more time watching TV and playing on their state of the art consoles than on studying and reading topics which can make them more competent, they are young people who is more worried on parties and on style of lives of vanity that on studying or preparing their careers, at the best of the scenarios we get young mediocre professionals, incompetent professionals, and finally as a consequence we get a generation of mature people who worries more on gaining money the easy way, making as a whole a more incompetent society, because we undermine the values and morality of the society, we think very frequently that values are an out of date stuff, but in reality values have a huge impact in the perform of a society…. The more we squander our time serving indiscriminately our own interest and our own “pleasures” and not spending time on serving the interest of our society, and being concerned of our responsibility with the society (at the micro level of ourselves) the more incompetent we´ll become, the more unbalanced this economic system and the more the underperforming of the society, I make this analysis because we have to be concern that the politic leaders, economic leaders, institutions are the result of our society, of our values, traditions at the microlevel of ourselves.

Thanks Doc,
They may as well give each other awards like Hollywood. I have told them from the beginning that, "there are also consequences for success", but they ignored it then, and now they are poised to rape Africa again. Because don't you know that without those African 'resources' the West becomes a bunch of paper-pushing paupers. They cannot 'expand' their hegemony, or claim 'fictitious' assets without real property and the resources of that property.

So they stumble from Mid-East War to Africa War(seamlessly under the guise of counter-terrorism). Funny how a nation as indebted as the US has all the money necessary to build a new army(AFRICOM) to prop up the Commonwealth and all the other former Western colonizers? Surely any nation producing/selling this many weapons( http://t.co/wyl70rvc ) has no interest in "uplift Humanity", huh?

We shall see what this august body has to say about their performance to date in Haiti(...that place on Earth where suffering is manufactured and poverty is a cash crop). That their shame is not evident is only due to their lack of responsibility to even honor their own 'propaganda'. It is not the first time, nor will it be the last, but one day they will understand that, "even the poor and illiterate know injustice when they see it", ...and on that day "Ignorance will be Banished".

Butler the author of the article that appeared in Nature Magazine had an ulterior motive which concerns the eradication of Avian Flu pandemics with his friend Albert Osterhaus (senior adviser to the WHO on pandemics) who called for the so-called Swine Flu pandemic which released billions upon billions of sales for the pharmaceuticals (he is funded in the main by the big drug companies) - http://rense.com/general88/megawho.htm

Osterhaus is also loathed in the Netherlands by many people for experimenting on animals without a licence.

On our side we challenged Osterhaus prior to the article appearing in respect that the drugs strategy would never work as they would come too late to save people. Swine flu in 2009 proved this as only after 7 month 1 week was a vaccine authorised and then it had to be manufactured and distributed throughout the world. The 1918 Spanish flu that took up to 100 million lives (note that swine flu is nowhere near as deadly and where the former kills 60% of those infected) but where most of these people died between month 4 and month 6 after the first death and where it had had mutated again into the mass killer. We put forward the only strategy that would stop avian flu in Thailand in 2008 that was directed at its source. It stopped the pandemic happening in 1997 in Hong Kong. But our strategy had not the billions and billions in drug sales, so the pharmaceutical industry wanted it stopping, Nature Magazine did their dirty work and the only strategy that can stop avian flu was destroyed. Our thinking was that prevention was better than cure, not let it happen in the first place and then try to provide a vaccine in time which was sheer madness in our mind. This article therefore killed off the alternative strategy to prevent hundreds of millions dying in the future. For it will happened and where Margaret Chan (D-G of the WHO) has said many times that is only a matter of time and not when.

Nature magazine is not above board and does what the piper wants, just like mosr corporates with vested financial interests.

Time Horizons for the 2009 Swine Flu Pandemic against the 1918 Spanish flu
Detection
Time Scale - 0 months
Swine Flu first detected – Influenza A, Novel H1N1 "swine flu" was first detected in Mexico City and was made public March 18, 2009. Therefore the first causality was probably at the beginning of March 2009 taking into account the incubation period.

First Death in USA
Time Scale + 2-months later
at the end of April 2009

1st Vaccine Approved
Time Scale + 6 months 2 weeks
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the new swine flu vaccine for use in the United States on September 15, 2009.

Vaccine 1st ready for use in USA
Time Scale + 7 months 1 week
The vaccine was first ready from mass production and used on 5th October 2009 in the USA

Most Vaccinated City in the USA by 22nd March 2010
Time Scale + 1 year 1month 1 week
Massachusetts vaccinated more residents against the swine flu and seasonal flu in the fall and winter than any other state.
Up to the end of Winter (March 2010) - The Massachusetts Department of Public Health says 36 percent of residents were inoculated against the swine flu, also known as H1N1, compared with 21 percent nationally. Seasonal flu vaccinations were administered to 57 percent of the population, compared with 37 percent nationwide.
A mere 36% in one USA city and where nationally only 21% had the vaccine by March 22nd 2010.

Remember that the Spanish flu took up to 100 million lives and most died within 6 months of the first death.

2013
Another year has gone by! An year of wasted opportunities and valuable resources. The real problems which plague the world remain unresolved- poverty,hunger,malnutrition,disease,illiteracy,unemployment,women's empowerment and human unity.

The worlds leaders are too preoccupied with petty issues to tackle the complex issues facing mankind. Will this civilisation also end as a failure like the earlier ones or will humanity rise to the occasion and grow to a higher,nobler,beautiful,harmonious and a truer life? What is needed is a paradigm shift!

We have the technology,the resources and the capability to resolve the problems facing mankind within a short time-span. What is lacking is the willingness and the sincerity to identify the issues and come to terms with them.

Any further postponement to come to grips with the real issues will only spell a crisis-moral,spiritual,economic,environmental and ecological. It could even lead to a catastrophe the likes of which would be unimaginable.
Will 2013 be the year of change?

Davos, the focal point of annual junkets for leaders and their official and political cohorts (as well as non-political on the sly) provides a forum for the individual nations to utter inanities with fundamentally economic but basically political ramifications which often end up in obfuscating and concealing more than elucidating on crucial issues. The occasion also makes possible to take stock of many individual's Swiss and non-Swiss accounts to hush up or to hush out their hush hush investments. It is to their credit that Switzerland has become famous for more than its touristic manifestations. At least some leaders without followers but with their cohorts would be very happy if they are not followed in Davos and elsewhere unless they come back to their own country.

In his still provocative "Republic" Plato´s (greek, a supreme irony), proposed five types of government: Aristocracy, Timarchy ( a military Aristocrcy), Oligarchy (ruled by the wealthy minority), democracy and tyranny.

Our present type of governmemt is "marketocracy".
We all know (and suffer) the dangers of a self-regulated market (financial system). The financial crisis of 2008 was a teachable moment, a perfect example of what can go wrong if you trust a market economy to regulate itself. The events of the recent financial crisis are extremely difficult to reconcile with the concept (notion) that debt plays a positive role in providing "ex ante" discipline to bank managers.

There are two possible answers to the zillion euro question of the self-regulation of the markets.

First answer: If the markets only "deal" with private investment (private money), there should be no reason to prohibit self-regulation (with one condition: no bail outs. Private money, Private business, Private crisis, Private solutions).

Second answer: If the markets deal (directly or indirectly) with public money ("tax money") there should be extreme market regulation.

I forgot to mention with specific regard to the Nature article ‘A Mysterious Foundation’, about the unsound nature and the mistruths within it.
Butler the author stated that one of the WIF’s vice-presidents Robert Huber did not know of the Foundation. He would not as Butler asked him about a completely different institution. Indeed Robert undertook an assignment in Brazil before the Nature article and travelled with some of the Fellows of the Foundation. Therefore either Butler is telling the truth or Robert is losing his marbles. Prof. Ludger Wessjohann mentioned in the article was one of the Fellows who travelled to Brazil with Prof. Huber. Most of those cited in the article have apologised and where Ian Pearson, the former Futurologist at BT, still is a WIF fellow and has offered to do what he can for the Foundation after finding out the real reason for the Nature article. Prof. Ralph was with his granddaughter at the time and just wanted to get rid of Butler and his aggressive attitude and said things in haste. He has also apologies to the Foundation. The article was published on the very same day that Prof. Shortridge gave his keynote address at the international conference in Thailand (‘The Bangkok International Conference on Avian Influenza 2008) and timed to destroy this strategy (the only one that will stop the situation happening) - http://www.biotec.or.th/en/index.php/info-center/news/news2008/232-avian...

There is nothing more precious than trust. Without it, there can be no success. Strong reputations lead to success and those reputations are comprised of character, communication, and trust. WEF and leaders need to urge a focus on trust.
Great last line to this article: "Suffice it to say, there is nothing more top down than trying to lead the world from high up a mountain."

Butler the author of the article that appeared in Nature Magazine had an ulterior motive which concerns the eradication of Avian Flu pandemics with his friend Albert Osterhaus (senior adviser to the WHO on pandemics) who called for the so-called Swine Flu pandemic which released billions upon billions of sales for the pharmaceuticals (he is funded in the main by the big drug companies) - http://rense.com/general88/megawho.htm

Osterhaus is also loathed in the Netherlands by many people for experimenting on animals without a licence.

On our side we challenged Osterhaus prior to the article appearing in respect that the drugs strategy would never work as they would come too late to save people. Swine flu in 2009 proved this as only after 7 month 1 week was a vaccine authorised and then it had to be manufactured and distributed throughout the world. The 1918 Spanish flu that took up to 100 million lives (note that swine flu is nowhere near as deadly and where the former kills 60% of those infected) but where most of these people died between month 4 and month 6 after the first death and where it had had mutated again into the mass killer. We put forward the only strategy that would stop avian flu in Thailand in 2008 that was directed at its source. It stopped the pandemic happening in 1997 in Hong Kong. But our strategy had not the billions and billions in drug sales, so the pharmaceutical industry wanted it stopping, Nature Magazine did their dirty work and the only strategy that can stop avian flu was destroyed. Our thinking was that prevention was better than cure, not let it happen in the first place and then try to provide a vaccine in time which was sheer madness in our mind. This article therefore killed off the alternative strategy to prevent hundreds of millions dying in the future. For it will happened and where Margaret Chan (D-G of the WHO) has said many times that is only a matter of time and not when.

Nature magazine is not above board and does what the piper wants, just like mosr corporates with vested financial interests.

Time Horizons for the 2009 Swine Flu Pandemic against the 1918 Spanish flu
Detection
Time Scale - 0 months
Swine Flu first detected – Influenza A, Novel H1N1 "swine flu" was first detected in Mexico City and was made public March 18, 2009. Therefore the first causality was probably at the beginning of March 2009 taking into account the incubation period.

First Death in USA
Time Scale + 2-months later
at the end of April 2009

1st Vaccine Approved
Time Scale + 6 months 2 weeks
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the new swine flu vaccine for use in the United States on September 15, 2009.

Vaccine 1st ready for use in USA
Time Scale + 7 months 1 week
The vaccine was first ready from mass production and used on 5th October 2009 in the USA

Most Vaccinated City in the USA by 22nd March 2010
Time Scale + 1 year 1month 1 week
Massachusetts vaccinated more residents against the swine flu and seasonal flu in the fall and winter than any other state.
Up to the end of Winter (March 2010) - The Massachusetts Department of Public Health says 36 percent of residents were inoculated against the swine flu, also known as H1N1, compared with 21 percent nationally. Seasonal flu vaccinations were administered to 57 percent of the population, compared with 37 percent nationwide.
A mere 36% in one USA city and where nationally only 21% had the vaccine by March 22nd 2010.

Remember that the Spanish flu took up to 100 million lives and most died within 6 months of the first death.

There seems to be a glitch in the 'recommend' system The Economist uses... This article has achieved 'Most popular' status apparantly because of the absurd number of 'recommends' given to An Smaointeoir
..
Can you try to get it fixed, please

EC and ECB mind-control_ many politicians and business people in Europe. They
manipulate financial markets, require high interest rate, require low-price
privatization.
This is done with small implants in the head (sometimes involuntary)and
wireless technology, European Parliament calls it “converging technology”. Essentially a sensor is connected to nerves and the brain
teaches itself to recognize the single in this way the thoughts of a person
can be received and also send to him/her. I found such device implanted in my
sinuses with FMRI. I studied at CEU - sponsored by Soros, and Rostowski, the
financial minister of Poland was teaching there (he is also mind_ contolled), Bokrosh – European Parliament as well.
Behind Soros, actually are EC and ECB - the owners and beneficiaries of the
technology. It is not done for security, because I worked for the Bulgarian_
National Bank and I was threatened with this technology to make credit
expansion for the bank cartel (CEU is teaching the central banks in CEE this
actually). From BNB the mind-controlled on_ Telekom_ Austria_ net_ are Staty Statev, Kalin Hristov, Mariela Nenova, Andrey Vassilev, Rosen Rozenov, Grigor Stoevsky, Kristina Karagyozova, Tzvetan Tzalinsky lost 20 bln at stock exchange, 10 bln bad loans, tens of bilions at housing market.
I also met Papademos at a Austrian Central Bank Conference, while he was in
ECB, and I believe he is also mind-controlled. Tha same is valid for Spain, Italy, Greece.